Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The proposed location is home to species rarity (61% of the species in Sulawesi island), covering by an intact forest landscape, and including in the key biodiversity area.
Evidence B:Globally significant across the island (Sulawesi)
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The applicant does not provide information about potential carbon stock, but geospatial data indicates that the proposed location is surrounded by high carbon density.
Evidence B:Average across area covered
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The proposed location is maintained by strong and active customary institutions. Geospatial data also indicated that the proposed areas are surrounded by IPLCs’ territory.
Evidence B:Significant constraints as the extent of tenure is unclear - and large National Parks with limited access. Strong institutions continue to exist
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The proposed project clearly indicated the significance of the proposed location for cultural and local livelihoods.
Evidence B:yes
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The applicant has indicated some crucial threats in the proposed location including restriction from the national park officers, mining and plantation concessions, illegal logging and hunting, power generator project and monoculture development.
Evidence B:complex, differentiated threats, mining, agriculture, conservation policies, population increases, centralised agricultural planning
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The government at different level have enacted regulations to support IPLC-led conservation and recognition of customary land rights in Sulawesi.
Evidence B:Recognise limited rights, but genuine policy opportunties are described
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The government at different level have enacted regulations to support IPLC-led conservation and recognition of customary land rights in Sulawesi.
Evidence B:Localised support and opening of opportunities under decentralised rule in Idonesia
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The applicant explained that some indigenous groups have obtained legal recognition from the district government for their cultural practice in natural resource management.
Evidence B:Well described in the proposal, in specific locations (scale still small)
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: The applicant with its partner has been implementing some projects in the proposed location. Co-financing is possible with this project and the applicant also encourages co-financing by village institutions since currently the government of Indonesia increase the budget for village government that they can spend for village development programs.
Evidence B:Specific projects looking at the Sulewesi landscape are well describe.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposed activities include documentation, farmer empowerment, policy advocacy, rising environmental awareness and women economic empowerment. These activities are strongly aligned with the main objective of ICI to enhance IPLCs’effort to steward land and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits.
Evidence B:Well aligned but scale uncertain - and not clear that sites are well connected
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:tenure aspect needs better information
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The proposed project has good potential to tackle threats to the proposed location. By enhancing IPLCs’ control to the area and obtaining legal recognition of customary territory can prevent further threats to the location. The applicant also explained the activities and outcomes clearly.
Evidence B:no direct linkages made between logical and strong project design, and the originally identified complex threats. implication is improved management and documentation will push back threats, not clearly explained however
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The proposed activities are well aligner with EoI range of investment
Evidence B:seems very good scale of investment
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The applicant has indicated potential co-financing for this project from other donor and village governments.
Evidence B:community co-financing is mentioned, but other projects also bring funding towards both biodiversity protection, and land tenure - both outcomes of this project too
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The proposed location is 108.500 hectares and potential beneficiaries are 4.762 persons.
Evidence B:just over 100k identified
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Additional cultural and livelihood indicators are listed in the EoI, but the applicant does not explain them clearly.
Evidence B:clearly derive but not well described, high level and general
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The proposed project is quite ambitious to obtain legal recognition of customary forest at the end of this project. This makes sense for 5 years of program and this achievement will sustain the IPLC-led conservation in this location.
Evidence B:logic is that legal change provides longer-term impact, this is sound, but financing to support will be needed in the medium term.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The applicant indicates that the project is in line with Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (IBSAP) and the government commitment to reduce carbon emissions.
Evidence B:Light description, but accurate linkages
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The proposed project clearly explains women participation in implementation as well as a crucial target for the project. The applicant is also aware of the important role of women in conservation and decision-making at the local level. Some activities are specially designed for women empowerment in economy and conservation.
Evidence B:strong description, incorporates also economic and social discriminations
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The applicant has indicated a good example of existing IPLC-led conservation in the proposed location. This project will scale up and replicate such a successful model to be the best practice for community-based conservation at the national and regional level.
Evidence B:route to scale beyond the project sites is not clear
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proposed project is lead by NGOs and the implementation proposed activities will execute with local NGOs and IPLC groups. Division of tasks are clear among NGOs, but it has not clear with IPLC groups.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The applicant consists of 4 NGOs that work at a different level and expertise. Local NGOs such as Wallacea and Awam Green have expertise in community organising and participatory mapping, while Bantaya and RMI have good experience in policy advocacy.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The role of IPLC groups are not clearly described in the EoI, but they will be included in the implementation of the project. This information is found in the section on women participation in the project implementation.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The applicants have adequate skills and capacity for the implementation of the project and they have experience involving in GEF-funded projects.
Evidence B:difficult to be sure with evidence provided but definitely 3 or 4 here
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The applicant annual budget is USD 385.000. Currently, the applicant maintains investment from more that 3 donor agencies.
Evidence B:moderate, would be a stretch, but certainly feasible
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The applicant is familiar with safeguard standards and involving with some related project from other projects such as MCA-Indonesia and DGM-Indonesia.
Evidence B:safeguards, yes, and similar to the GEF, but not specifically the GEF standards